The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Here's a shot of the new and old models side by side, borrowed from Timezone UK. They've put a longer second hand on the new model, but the minute and hour hands are the same as on the old model.

Seems clear they just reused the old hands. Odd.

_________________
SHARKMAN

They did. I'm sure this makes me a geek, but I actually used my calipers to compare the sizes of the hands on the screen. They're the exact same measurement on both, except for the second hand.

At a quick glance, doesn't seem to bug too much... but upon closer inspection yes the hands do seem a bit out of place. They definitely need to be longer...

You have an excellent point Jackson about the 39's with the short hands being collectibles... rolex collectors seem to find every niche and every "excuse" to make any of their watches extra collectible... matte dials, crazed dials, rail dials, pointed crown guard, no crown guard, blueberry inserts, faded inserts, ghost grey inserts, etc... the list goes on... but no problem with that... I just don't really seem to care for that...

now if we're talking about a red sub then maybe things might be different...

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

That's pretty much how I feel. Just glancing at the watch, the hands don't bother me. But after looking more closely, it does seem that longer hands would fit the dial better. What I'm curious about is the justification Rolex had in leaving the hands the same. Initially it might seem like an oversight, except for the second hand. Once you realize they changed that, then you realize Rolex were aware of the size of the hands, and made a conscious decision not to modify the hour and minute hands. I can't figure that one out.

The dial proportions on the Sub are ideal. My only reservation about the Sub, however minor, is the proportion of the lugs to the bracelet. I like the changes to the case, and how the wider lugs make the whole watch bolder. But I think ideally Rolex could have made the bracelet a couple millimeters wider, just to keep the proportions in order.

Sorry - I had to chuckle when I read that remark. Considering Breitling's trend over the past few years in making Frankenwatches - or new models "from the parts bin," I just thought this comment was humorous.

There's been a lot of debate on this forum regarding the length of the hands. For me personally, it's no big deal. It's obvious they just took the same movement and hands and are using a slightly larger dial.

I've said it before, but that's what I've come to like about Rolex. Change when it makes sense - not change for the sake of change. I like the new explorer.

_________________
************* ************************ **********
PAM359, Omega PO Big Size, 1951 Omega Seamaster, Rolex Sea Dweller

Realize my comment is from both a new line Breitling hater and a Rolex fan - I have two presently and have had 2 others. When Rolex designed the DJ 2, Day Date 2, and the new 42mm Explorer II they made new hands to fit the dial. The new Explorer I looks disproportional with undersized hands and is inconsistent with the entire Rolex line. Hard to suggest that was Rolex just not making change for the sake of making change. They increased the size of the watch AND DIAL by 3MMs and left the hands (except the second hand) the same. 3MMs is not "a slightly larger dial." In watches 3MMs is a substantial increase.

IMO rolex made a mistake by giving this watch T-Rex hands. IMO Breitling also made many mistakes recently. But Breitling's failings ought not to be the standard by which a Rolex is measured.

_________________
SHARKMAN

I really like the Exp I, I had never paid any attention to it because I thought it was boring but I checked one out in person the other day and I really liked it. That being said I'd take the Milgauss over the ExpI if I had to choose but wouldn't mind owning both of them.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."

How you feel about the size of the hands is obviously a personal opinion. It's negligible in my world and I don't give it a second thought. Additionally, at least Rolex is using parts from the existing watch line vs. trying to mix and match pieces from different watches to make a completely new/different watch.

And while I agree with your statement that Breitling's failings ought not to be the standard by which a Rolex is measured - the name of this forum is called Breitlingsource - so it's not a stretch for me to make the comparison.

_________________
************* ************************ **********
PAM359, Omega PO Big Size, 1951 Omega Seamaster, Rolex Sea Dweller

Generally I like it too. But I have to say that I think simply taking the same hands and sticking them on a larger dial isn't what I expect from a company like Rolex. As you say, Rolex doesn't make change for change's sake; their changes are infrequent and incremental. Therefore, when they do make changes, they need to make sure they get those changes right. Simply taking the hands from an existing model and sticking them on a new model isn't going the extra mile to get it right, imo. Unless, of course, Rolex intentionally wanted the hands to look smaller in proportion to the larger dial. If so, that's a subjective call, but I haven't heard anyone say they actually like the proportions of the new dial better than the old dial; at best, people say they don't mind them. And of course others hate them.

As Tom said, an increase from 36mm to 39mm isn't "slight." The diameter increase is over 9%, and the actual increase to the area of the case is over 17%. Keeping the same hands clearly changes the proportions of the face of the watch, regardless of whether one thinks that's a good thing or not.


Jeez, it's going to be hard not to think of that now when looking at the watch.

J/S, when you buy the Sub C, and you will buy the Sub C, you will be delighted in all respects. It is one of "those" watches that you wear on day 7 and realize you like it more than day 1.

_________________
SHARKMAN

I have no doubt, on all accounts.

Well, that's the way I look at it. I personally think it's not Rolex not going the extra mile as much as it was a conscious decision to use the smaller hands. I don't see "t-rex" hands on this piece like others do and in my eyes, I don't see Rolex cutting corners here. I mean really, the cost of the hands compared to other parts of the watch is a drop in the bucket and I can't imagine that Rolex kept the hands the same size for financial reasons. There are no "standards" for how large the hands need to be in proportion to the dial.

_________________
************* ************************ **********
PAM359, Omega PO Big Size, 1951 Omega Seamaster, Rolex Sea Dweller

Who said they were cutting corners or trying to save money? I haven't seen that on this thread. I'm sure it was their intent to do exactly what they did without consideration of $$. Just a design faux pas IMO.

_________________
SHARKMAN